Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG from Goodman Games

[Neonchameleon]

Note that they are not door or window piercing.... Obstacles Stop them dead...

But they go right through crystal balls.

And I am sure that there are protections against scrying....

Yes. You need protection up 24/7.

And the mis-casting any spell has the chance of swallowing your soul.

The example given was for someone who'd made a pact with a demon. And summoned the demon. If all magic can swallow souls, that's a different issue.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But they go right through crystal balls.

Possibly; the description is not clear. It may be that you can only target using a crystal ball, but the missile must still have a clear path between you and the target. This is akin to using a satellite to launch a warhead; the warhead targets using the satellite, but does not launch from it. Orbital weapons platforms notwithstanding. I will certainly grant that this doesn't seem to be the RAW right now.
.
.
.
.
.......However.......
.
.
.
.
.
Even then, Neonchameleon's point still stands. Unless there is some danger to scrying that we do not know, the wizard need only keep trying (scrying) until the target is outdoors. Once the target is outside, it's magic missiles away!

Until we see more, it will be impossible to tell what the rammifications of this system might be.


RC

 

[Filcher]

The example given was for someone who'd made a pact with a demon. And summoned the demon. If all magic can swallow souls, that's a different issue.

I don't have any more information than what was presented to us in the playtest, but on certain failed (crit failed, maybe?) spell checks, bad bad things happened to the arcane spell caster.

We had our only cleric working diligently to ensure that the wizard wasn't consumed by darkness (or whatever). It left me with the sense that magic wasn't 100% reliable, or to be cast without concern of repercussion.

Short version: In our playtest, magic was clearly dangerous to our caster. Don't know how this will manifest in the public beta.

 

[frankthedm]

Unless there is some danger to scrying that we do not know

Or what range limitations on scrying are. Might not be planetwide.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Or what range limitations on scrying are. Might not be planetwide.

True.

But the point was

(1) Neonchameleon has a point, and
(2) We don't have enough info to know how valid a point.

BUT if the Good Crew at Goodman Games checks in on this thread, and reads Neonchameleon's post, they have a better chance to correct this (if it needs correcting) before release than if Neonchameleon had not posted.

Posting potential problems with a system prior to release is a good thing.


RC

 

[airwalkrr]

Wow, I haven't been so quoted in a long time, let alone "mentioned" in a thread. Let me add some background so that maybe some of you understand where I am coming from.

Right now, in my FLGS there are more RPGs on the shelves than there are sourcebooks for the entire 4e library. That means take all the sourcebooks for 4e, including adventures, that have been published by WotC so far and add them up. Then walk around the store and look for individual titles for RPGs, unique systems. What you will find (in my FLGS at least) is that the sheer quantity of RPGs in print outnumbers the number of sourcebooks for the single most popular system in play currently.

Another interesting phenomenon you will find is that there is a nice big bulletin board at my FLGS for people looking for games. You can tack up a post-it with your contact information and the kind of game you are looking to play. There are roughly 20 post-its up right now that have been there for the last six months and I have contacted ALL of them. I have not, thus far, met a single person who wants to play anything other than the game system they specifically posted for. The vast majority of them have told me they still don't have groups. Of those, most would rather play the system they prefer or nothing at all.

Now I am not going to disparage people for wanting to have a choice in the game they play. Capitalism, for the most part is a good thing in that profit motive creates variety. And there may be a fair number of decent RPGs out there. I've played a number of them simply in an attempt to meet new players. But the market is flooded with RPG systems right now. And the desire for someone to want to get their money's worth on a product they invested in is very real. From what I have seen, too many cooks are spoiling the broth that is roleplaying.

Maybe I am completely wrong. But trying to get a group of more than 2-3 people together to play one game in the city where I live (which has a population of over 1 million) is like pulling teeth. It takes a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, and when you're done it leaves you feeling sore. Ultimately the only options there are in my city if you want to play with more than 2-3 people seems to be organized play through the RPGA or Pathfinder Society. Everyone who can't compromise on one of those two games is left with a product they paid for, but nobody else wants to play because everyone else paid for another product that appealed to them personally. Roleplaying is a niche hobby. It is being divided by too many games.

Anyway, I won't be picking up DCC the RPG. It's an unnecessary product in a market flooded with similar products. They can try to capitalize on their success with the DCC modules and the good name they've built for themselves, but I have a dire prediction in store for them. Maybe we'll have another Paizo, but I rather doubt it.

 

[mach1.9pants]

^Thanks for a well thought out answer, that makes more sense than your original post IMO. You want less RPGs, fair enough. I want more I managed to drag 4 people in for a game in a town of less the 1000 people, and we played 4E, CoC, and Dragon Age before RL split us up. So I am not sure why you have so much problems!
Anyway saying you think the market is over saturated is a fair opinion. GL with getting together a group that is open minded enough to try any game, they're mostly all good!

EDIT: I also doubt that DCC wants to be a new Paizo, just to make that little bit more money!

But that high level of power on MM does seem a little OP... even with the risk of being eaten by your Frog Demon patron (yes happened at a Con) I am still interested in this game, because it seems so different from the ultra-balanced 4E or ultra assimilationist and details 3E/PfRPG or the ultra tokeny WHFRP3E or the ultra new age FATE/Anglerre or the the ultra old school OSR products I have

too many ultras I know

 

[Rel]

I totally disagree with the notion that there are too many rulesets out there.

I mean yeah, a lot of them are not aligned with my particular set of tastes (which is not to say that they are crap, though some of them may be). But that's fine because not everybody has my set of tastes. I have had the chance to play a ton of different systems over the last 4 or 5 years and I'm seeing some really innovative design. Many systems I've only played once and don't care to play again. It's all good.

If there are people out there who are saying, "I only want to play this one system and if I can't play that then I'm not going to play anything." then that's their right to take that position. It may keep them from gaming and I think it's a bit silly, but hey, different strokes.

Personally I like having the right tool for the job. And that requires having a broad selection of tools. I've got games I prefer for regular campaign play (4e D&D, Savage Worlds), games I prefer at Game Days for one-shots (Old School Hack, Dread) and games that we can turn to when other plans fall through or we don't have something already prepared (Fiasco). And there are lots of others out there too that I like to play once in a while if I know a really awesome GM is running one.

Bottom line is that I welcome the variety of options, and I especially welcome options from a company like Goodman Games who has turned out a lot of really fun stuff over the years.

 

[nedjer]

too many cooks are spoiling the broth that is roleplaying.

Better a murky broth than a stagnant pond

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

This is concerning fighters in DCC
By Joseph Goodman from Goodman Games • View topic - Warrior mechanics

In practical terms, that means not just interesting magic, but also amazing stunts by warriors.

In game terms, D&D has done this for generations and consistently created complex sub-systems as a result. 3E did it with feats, 4E with powers, prior systems with other mechanisms, and they tend to create complexity and limit the warrior far more than what the literature suggests. Conan, Elric, and John Carter didn't specialize in a single weapon style or a special type of fighting to become they heroes they were. They were good at it all.

What I'm playing with right now is base attack bonus. In traditional D&D, fighter types get +1 at level 1, +2 at level 2, +3 at level 3, and so on. In DCC RPG right now, warriors get d3 at level 1, d4 at level 2, d5 at level 3, and so on.

By "d3 at level 1," I mean the warrior rolls a d3 on every attack roll. This attack is d20+d3+Str mod; next attack is d20+d3+Str; etc. It's not a d3 made at the level-up time, but rolled anew every attack.

The sum of these dice forms the attack roll, which is compared to AC as usual.

If the overall attack roll hits, AND that d3 is a 3 or better, the warrior can perform a cool stunt declared at moment of attack. We call this a Mighty Deed of Arms.

Examples of actual Mighty Deeds performed in play:

• When fighting opponents on a staircase, someone used a sword to stab the opponent and then lever them over the edge of the staircase
• In the same battle, someone attacked the foe's legs to knock them off balance and off the staircase
• When fighting a carven image with eyes that shot laser beams, a warrior used a mace to smash out the carved eyes (and thus disarm the laser beams)
• When fighting a basilisk with a hypnotizing gaze, a warrior tried to stab it in the eye to disable its gaze
• When fighting a flying skull that was out of melee reach, a warrior tried to leap off the back of another character into a flying lunge that connected with the skull in mid-air (very cool)
• When hurling flasks of burning oil at a giant toad, a warrior aimed for the toad's open mouth to throw the oil down its gullet
• In a battle with enemies arrayed in a single-file line, a warrior hurled a javelin straight through the first enemy to spear it to the next opponent in line, entangling the one foe with the corpse of his ally

All the examples above were off-the-cuff maneuvers declared by players in-game at the moment of dice rolling (about half these examples came up in my games over the last two days).

At level 2, the warrior rolls d4 instead of d3. A roll of 3-4 on the d4, on an attack that beats AC overall, allows for a Mighty Deed of Arms.

At level 3, the warrior rolls d5 instead of d3. A roll of 3-5 on the d5, on an attack that beats AC overall, allows for a Mighty Deed of Arms.

And so on. It's fast, it's easy, it's ad hoc, and it allows for amazing in-game fighter maneuvers without the cumbersome elements of feats and prior edition attempts to do this. The rules do include DM guidelines on how to handle classic instances of Mighty Deeds (disarm, parry, bull rush, etc.) but in play so far almost every example I've seen is a really cool unique situation-specific maneuver - exactly what I am going for.

There are a couple other wrinkles, too. The "action die" (as I'm calling the d3, d4, d5, etc.) is also added to damage. (The same roll as for the attack -- if you get a 2 on the die for the attack, you add 2 to the damage.) Warriors with multiple weapons roll one action die and attach it to both weapon attack rolls. Etc.

Hopefully that makes sense. It's working out great in play so far.

Interesting, instead of static effects like feats and powers provide, this mechanic allows dynamic effects based on the opponent and the environment. I'm interested in seeing the DM guidelines to these Might Deeds of Arms. Cleaving, tripping, disarming, and sundering weapons are all great, but doing it for free as a rider on every third attack at first level seems, well, really strong. An these odds only go up (50% of the time at 2nd level, 60% of the time at 3rd).

I'm still very interested in this product.